Slashdot Mirror
Benetton Says No to RFIDs ... For Now
securitas writes "In a dramatic reversal of Benetton's previously announced plans to embed RFID tags in all of its clothing, the retailer has responded to customer privacy concerns and canceled its plans to go ahead with the project. Wired News and ComputerWorld also have stories on this stunning turn of events, which RFID manufacturer Philips is undoubtedly unhappy about. Benetton says it 'reserves the right' to use RFIDs in the future."
am I able to reserve the right to remove them? I want them to be a completely seperate color and I want them to be easily removed. If these two conditions aren't met, I am not going to buy them.
Like a microwave oven?
The owls are not what they seem
Its quite possible to have it so that when the RFID's are scanned at the checkout they are destroyed. This might create a small problem with refunds but definitly helpful to the retalier
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I thought that these RFID transmitters had
a range of 10-15 ft. Barring society installing
scanners every 15 feet, how is this a threat
to privacy? You probably have a better chance
of being tracked by using your debit card than
RFID technology.
Benetton has said no to the publicity surrounding RFID tags.
So this particular implementation got onto the radar screens - do we think this will actually go away? Not in the slightest. All Phillips and everyone else has to do is make some quiet deals that don't directly impact consumers, maybe some business-to-business product, then find a way to make RFID tags "important to homeland security" and it's off to the races.
I have an idea for Philips, how about saying that RFID tags should be required on all products coming over the border from Mexico and into ports in the U.S. so that the Department of Homeland Security can better track them for suspicious shipment patterns? It would be a delicious use of both your lobbying power and the government's ability to shove intrusive technologies down our throats as long as they're slathered in a thick gravy of anti-terrorism.
Sorry to be Mr. Cynical on this, but we just watched Benetton take a principled stand on nothing excepting being an RFID guinea pig. I give them two years before they're back on board.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
To a greater or lesser degree.
It's not like one won't be able to disable or even remove such a chip, once it becomes known to your general shoplifter what they are, where they are and how they work.
It's perfectly possible to make a type of RFID tag that doesn't affect privacy in any meaningful way. If the tag wasn't a unique identifier, but more like a product code (like the UPC code), then the only information it leaks it that it's a particlar inventiroy item, say, a red sweater.
No one can trace it to you, since--like a UPC symbol--it's not unique to item, but to the kind of item. And they could msake a way to disable them after purchase (like they do the little magnetized thingies in bookstores).
The privacy loss in unique-id RFID tags has a technological solution. I wish some slashdotter with access to capital would make a better, privacy-preserving widget instead of just hearing all of the bitching that you don't want the gov't to know you shop at LL Bean.
I can't see what the hysterical whining is about.
Here is the link: http://www.rf-id.com to general tags site. Read all about them.
The tags are just that - tags, just like any other tag on your clothing. It is not as if unique id is "embedded" in the threads of your pants and cannot be removed. In fact, if you will continue wearning clothes with RFID tag still attached - you will look like an idiot. Much like keeping any other tags on clothes.
Incidentally, what is the issue with privacy, even if the tag was somehow magically embedded into the thread of your pants? The tag identifies your pants as being a olive-green khakees size 48L, specifically made in Malaysia by a 12 year old? What part of that is not public knowledge or painfully obvious? What part of that is divulging information about the wearer of such clothes that he/she is not already giving up simply by wearing them?
In the case of the Bennetton tags, there wasn't even any additional convenience for the customer; just a straightforward loss of privacy ("wow, she's back for the 3rd day, still wearing the same jeans!"). So I think that died because they couldn't come up with any "convenient" excuse for tagging your clothes.
My claim is that even in other cases, like FastLane style auto toll collection, there's no technical or engineering reason you have to give up privacy for the convenience. Instead, the designers and/or operators of the systems want the information, so they provide a benefit in order to justify collecting the information. In the case of auto toll collection, as pointed out in here, your toll debit card could be purchased anonymously. This has all the convenience and none of the privacy intrusion of existing systems.
But what's the big deal about privacy anyway? My claim is that when times are good, privacy doesn't matter. But when times are bad, it's too late! Innocent databases can be misused in terrible ways. When the Nazis conquered cities, they would use library borrowing records to find Jewish people. How long until the next J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy comes along and abuses his position of power? (Yeah, I know, some would say Ashcroft is already worse; I don't want to start that argument). My point is that it has happened here, and likely will again. The potential unforseen future misuse of databases is what makes me a privacy advocate.
So, good riddance to Bennetton's RFID tags, and let's get rid of the false dichotomy that's used to insinuate similar privacy invasions!
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
The whole RFID debate seemed so familiar to me for a while, and I was pleased to finally put my finger on it recently. This is all so 1997.
Some of you might remember the huge debate over "magic cookies" (as we called them then) in the mid to late 90s. Around 1997, IIRC, it really built to a fevered pitch -- any self-respecting advocate (myself included) maintained that cookies would be the downfall of civilization, that they did nothing good, only evil, websites' reputation were based on whether or not they provided a Dreaded Cookie, etc., etc. Of course, we learned the cookies are useful, we developed tools to manage them, it became passe to protest them, and life went on.
Of course, RFID tags are just physical cookies. Much like with browsers, we will develop standards for how RFID tags should work, we will learn to manage them, and we will ultimately find that their benefits far outweigh their drawbacks.
-Waldo Jaquith
Why not just put the RFID in a sticker on the inside of the clothes that you can peel off, or put it in the tag?.. something you can just remove.. or a little "pop-off" thing like those dye-markers.. so they can just pop the thing off at the counter.
You get your manufacture-to-counter-to-sale tracking, and your customers can be anonymous (assuming you don't actually log the RFID-to-CCinfo.
meh
I believe it is simply a warning, "We reserve the right to change the terms of this Privacy Policy" just means that if they want to change the policy at a later time, they will. They are just letting you know.
"Well, we know you looked at childrens underware, so we know you're a child molester because it fits our profile of child molesters"
"what the hell are you talking about"
"When you where in the store, you where tracked fondaling childrens underware, you're a white male in youi late 20's, single, no children. clearly you match the profile"
"They were on the ground, I picked them up at put them on the shelf"
"sure,sure thats what they all say. At least we got you before children started disappearing."
now you've been arrested, and booked, and some group puts your personal information on the internet.
lets say it gets thrown out of court.(hey, I can be an optimist).Now everybody think you're a child molester who just got off on a 'technicality'. pretty much ruining your life.
to me, thats the real issue. data mining programs that find profiles or 'patterns', and people acting on them as if there always going to be correct.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on